October 29, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 85 to 88 of 149 22 of 59 sheets 85 THE WITNESS: You need to ask that question1 to the traffic engineer.2 THE PUBLIC: Are they here?3 THE WITNESS: No, but I believe they4 provided testimony previously.5 THE PUBLIC: Okay.6 It seems like it would take a long time,7 right?8 And the traffic study just, I think this was9 asked but I want to make sure. They're only responsible10 to do the traffic study for the new development but not11 the proposed development, correct?12 THE WITNESS: So when it relates to --13 THE PUBLIC: In other words, they're not14 required to account for the Highlands and The Grand?15 THE WITNESS: Are you talking about for the16 RSIS components?17 THE PUBLIC: So I got to ask you, what's18 RSI, because I think of that like it's a market19 indicator?20 THE WITNESS: So it's Residential Site21 Improvement Standard. It's New Jersey administrative22 code 521, so that's essentially the standard for all23 residential development in New Jersey.24 THE PUBLIC: Okay. I'm not sure that25 86 changes my question.1 THE WITNESS: I think you asked what RSIS2 was.3 THE PUBLIC: Oh, yeah. But before that, in4 other words, the developer --5 THE WITNESS: I didn't design it.6 THE PUBLIC: They're only for -- the RSIS is7 only required to account for the traffic that would be8 coming out of the proposed development not to add on9 what already exists in the Highlands and what already10 exists in The Grand, nor are they required to project11 how many cars will be coming in and out in addition to12 that for the doggy daycare?13 THE WITNESS: No. So what they are required14 to do is based on the number of units proposed for the15 development.16 THE PUBLIC: 496.17 THE WITNESS: That relates to 2728 trips.18 So that is as far as they need to --19 THE PUBLIC: So then the answer to my20 question, sorry, is they're not required to account for21 what's already there?22 THE WITNESS: Not as it relates to RSIS23 components.24 THE PUBLIC: As if we don't exist.25 87 THE WITNESS: I didn't create the standards.1 THE PUBLIC: Not accusing you of anything.2 I'm just asking you.3 Okay.4 Thank you.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.6 Anybody else from the public have any7 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?8 THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder, Howell Drive.9 A quick question for you. Thank you for some10 clarification, I'm trying to follow. So you said if the11 de

ny7 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?8 THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder, Howell Drive.9 A quick question for you. Thank you for some10 clarification, I'm trying to follow. So you said if the11 de minimis exception was granted it would be considered12 a multifamily cul-de-sac, if it wasn't granted it's13 considered a --14 THE WITNESS: Designed as a minor collector15 roadway.16 THE PUBLIC: Minor collector roadway?17 THE WITNESS: Yes.18 THE PUBLIC: So are there, if there's a19 multifamily cul-de-sac, what other affects does this20 have on other RSIS standards that have to be met and I21 believe you mentioned like it raises or lowers the22 traffic level based on the formula from RSIS, is that23 correct?24 THE WITNESS: Yeah. So that's regarding25 88 maximum grade.1 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Right. But what -- is2 there any other affects that either one has on the3 standard that need to be met within the development?4 Like -- so if you write, because everything has multiple5 effects, so is there other things that weren't shared6 this evening?7 THE WITNESS: I am not 100 percent following8 you, but nothing that I am aware of and, again, I do9 feel like that's a question better suited for the10 applicants traffic engineer.11 THE PUBLIC: Okay.12 I just wonder if it goes one way will13 everything be met? If the exception is not granted and14 it's a, sorry, can't remember that one term.15 THE WITNESS: De minimis.16 THE PUBLIC: If it is accepted it's a17 multifamily cul-de-sac, so are there other implications18 or does RSIS, are there other things that had to be19 conformed to and met and what are those and if it's not20 granted and goes the other way, that definition that you21 mentioned, what else has to be met there? Because it22 does change the -- does it change any other, you know,23 things that you could be --24 THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of. But25

23 of 59 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 89 again, I feel like that's a question better suited for1 the applicants traffic engineer. The one thing I will2 say is there's also, again, I don't want to speak for3 the applicant, but I believe they're requested a de4 minimis exception for not having -- for only having a5 sidewalk on one side of the roadway. So it's those two6 exceptions from the RSIS standards that would be7 required.8 THE PUBLIC: So how would you guide a9 Planning Board to look at this and evaluate it?10 THE WITNESS: Yes, I outlined what the11 standards are, the exceptions that the applicant is12 requesting and then I do not have a vote and I do not13 recommend or approve or deny, it's up to the board to14 hear the testimony specifically from the applicant. I15 will say, I never have given testimony as a board16 engineer, this is my first time in my career. It's not17 typical for a board engineer to provide testimony one18 way or the other on an application. I am not bias, I19 outline the standards, and their compliance with those20 standards. And it is on -- it is the burden of the21 applicant to provide the adequate testimony, not the22 board engineer.23 THE PUBLIC: Right. Could the engineer24 share his impression positive and also negative?25 90 THE WITNESS: So we outline what does and1 does not comply with the standards. It's the simplest2 way to put it.3 THE PUBLIC: My last question is, you said4 that this traffic signal on a county road has to be5 there to meet all these other standards. So what is the6 RSIS or what is the normal process in getting that7 approval? Is that done after the project is approved,8 is it done before a project is approved. What is the9 normal situation that would take place?10 THE WITNESS: I would say every project is11 different, right. Sometimes you have every single12 approval before going to a Planning Board, I have seen13 that before. A lot of times they are required, if the14 board did grant an approval as a condition of approval15 and if they did not get that county approval to do the16 signal then they can't proceed with construction and if17 they couldn't proceed with construction within the two18 year period that you have for a resolution approval,19 they could request up to three years of extensions per20 the MLUL and if they couldn't get the county approval21 within that time, then

the two18 year period that you have for a resolution approval,19 they could request up to three years of extensions per20 the MLUL and if they couldn't get the county approval21 within that time, then their resolution approval expires22 and they have to come bank to the board with a new23 application.24 MR. PLOCKER: Respectfully, I would disagree25 91 with Mr. MacNeill's interpretation. Under the Land Use1 Law I believe that the approval vests and gives2 protection from zoning changes and that's what the3 statute in the MLUL provides. In this case there were4 other restrictions regarding the amendment of the zone,5 namely the court approved affordable housing, so.6 THE WITNESS: So I'll defer to the attorneys7 on that situation.8 MR. PLOCKER: I didn't mean to say anything9 intentionally.10 THE PUBLIC: Okay. I'm confused by that.11 Well, I don't know where our attorney is. So, not our12 attorney --13 THE WITNESS: So to clarify my point. The14 county approval for this signal, if the board chose to15 provide an approval, would be required as a conditional16 approval and they would have to meet that condition17 before starting construction.18 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.20 Any other members of the public have any21 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?22 Please come up.23 THE PUBLIC: Jack McEvoy, Verona.24 For clarity on numbers, you said 2728 per25 92 day for the new development?1 THE WITNESS: Yes.2 THE PUBLIC: And did I hear a number of 51003 for the entire development?4 THE WITNESS: So that was what --5 THE PUBLIC: Going out Oval Road.6 THE WITNESS: That's what Mr. Litwornia7 calculated for the proposed development plus the8 existing development.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 Now, if we look at Kuzik Road and Warner,11 they meet outside of the development area, there's two12 other roads that come into Kuzik and I don't believe13 there's any, I don't think any units on Kuzik Road, I14 think they're all on it's Lapis and Luft. So if there's15 2728 coming out and you need two egresses then where16 Kuzik and Warner meet aren't you adding more than the17 496 plus what the units are on the other two roads?18 THE WITNESS: I absolutely understand where19 you're coming from, but I can only review against the20 standards. The standards unfortunately stop at the21 property line.22 THE PUBLIC: So -- but if the standards stop23 at the property line

where19 you're coming from, but I can only review against the20 standards. The standards unfortunately stop at the21 property line.22 THE PUBLIC: So -- but if the standards stop23 at the property line then why is the developer putting a24 light on Eagle Rock Avenue and Homehill?25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 93 to 96 of 149 24 of 59 sheets 93 THE WITNESS: Maybe the applicants attorney1 can address that, but I believe that was part of2 potentially this settlement agreement condition.3 MR. PLOCKER: I can certainly address it.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker.5 MR. PLOCKER: I think it was, it certainly6 is a requirement of the settlement agreement, because at7 the time the Township and Lehigh settled the case it was8 recognized that the proposed development would meet9 warrants for a traffic light at that intersection and I10 believe Mr. Pehnke testified extensively that the11 proposed development does meet, give warrant for a12 traffic light, which is why the light is required. It13 would be required. And we recognized that back in 201514 when we first got involved in the towns third round15 affordable housing litigation.16 THE PUBLIC: So is there a traffic study17 that shows that already or do you wait for a development18 to go in to do the traffic study to see if that19 intersection warrants a traffic light?20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker, have you21 presented to the county a request for a traffic signal?22 MR. PLOCKER: I don't know the status. I am23 not involved with that.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. We'll find out.25 94 THE PUBLIC: And lastly, the plan presented1 has an access road on Howell Drive?2 THE WITNESS: Yes.3 THE PUBLIC: Access only, for emergency4 access. In your opinion, if that access road is denied5 for whatever reason is this plan doable or how would it6 affect this plan?7 THE WITNESS: I am not going to provide8 testimony on that. Again, I am the board engineer, I9 have, if testimony's required it should be provided by10 the applicants traffic engineer.11 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other member of the13 public have any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his14 testimony? Please come up and be identified.15 THE PUBLIC: Mr. Chairman, Micaela Bennett,16 just your average everyday taxpayer.17 So just a point of clarification. You're18 providing expert testimony here tonight?19 THE WITNESS: So what I am doing as the board20 engineer is outlining the objectors traffic engineers21 report against the applicants traffic impact study for22 five -- sorry, seven points brought up by the objectors23 traffic engineer.24 THE PUBLIC: And are you --25 95 THE WITNESS: So my testimony was related to1 that only and, again, even

impact study for22 five -- sorry, seven points brought up by the objectors23 traffic engineer.24 THE PUBLIC: And are you --25 95 THE WITNESS: So my testimony was related to1 that only and, again, even saying board engineer2 provided testimony is atypical in planning board3 meetings.4 THE PUBLIC: Are you providing expert5 testimony or lay testimony?6 THE WITNESS: So I believe I answered that7 question. I am providing -- even calling it testimony,8 I don't really agree with. I am the board engineer9 outlining what the applicants engineer submitted and10 what the objectors engineer submitted.11 THE PUBLIC: This evening were you sworn in12 as the expert, an expert?13 THE WITNESS: Yeah, as the board engineer,14 not an expert providing testimony for or against the15 application.16 THE PUBLIC: Are you familiar with the17 concept of a net opinion?18 THE WITNESS: I am not.19 THE PUBLIC: You're an expert in the field20 of engineering and you're unfamiliar with the concept of21 net opinions?22 THE WITNESS: Net opinions?23 THE PUBLIC: Yes.24 THE WITNESS: I haven't heard that, no.25 96 THE PUBLIC: When you deferred answering1 questions that were presented by the objectors attorney2 stating that the expert for the applicant is who should3 be answering the questions --4 THE WITNESS: Again, I did not --5 THE PUBLIC: I didn't ask the question.6 THE WITNESS: Okay. Go ahead.7 THE PUBLIC: When you did that -- well, I8 guess when you say you don't know what a net opinion is9 --10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Would you ask him a11 question about his testimony, please.12 THE PUBLIC: I am asking him questions about13 testimony. He stated he doesn't testify, I am trying to14 get to the point of is he providing facts as a lay15 witness or is he providing expert opinions and16 testimony.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: His opinion is based on18 reviewing the applicants traffic engineer and the19 objectors traffic engineer. He's looking at both sides20 and saying, RSIS says this. So it's not objective21 information, he's not offering his opinion, he's just22 telling the board what RSIS says in relation to these23 experts.24 THE PUBLIC: As an expert he has been asked,25

25 of 59 sheets Page 97 to 100 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 97 I would like to know the answer, he said he could not1 answer, I think he said he should not answer, I would2 like to know the answers to the questions that were3 presented by the objectors attorney.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He is not testifying to5 the traffic engineering studies. He's testifying to the6 relationship to the RSIS, which is what we asked him to7 do.8 THE PUBLIC: I understand that, but you9 didn't get an answer. There were questions asked and as10 a taxpayer who pays for CME services to the township I11 want --12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's inappropriate. Let13 me clarify that the applicant pays for that through14 escrow. So let's just be clear. I want the public to15 understand this. The applicant pays for this through16 escrow funds.17 THE PUBLIC: Pays for this testimony?18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Correct.19 THE PUBLIC: CME wrote reports that are now20 in question as to accuracy and I am saying to you that21 taxpayers, you, me and everyone here, pays for CME's22 services.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I want you to listen24 carefully.25 98 THE PUBLIC: I am not saying here, I am not1 saying in this case, but we pay for their services. We2 have an expert witness saying he doesn't know what a net3 opinion is.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, I want you to5 listen to me for a second. Here this application is6 paid for through escrow funds, not through taxpayer7 funds. I want that to be clear. So please put that out8 there, that's inappropriate and inaccurate. The9 accuracy is he is paid for through escrow funds in this10 application for the planning board.11 THE PUBLIC: Thank you for your testimony,12 Mr. Bagoff. What I am saying to you is, we taxpayers13 pay for CME, maybe not here for this application.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, the only --15 THE PUBLIC: CME is paid for by the16 township.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So we're accurate for the18 people listening here and on zoom. In this -- the thing19 that we're focussing on tonight, this application is20 paid for through escrow funds. That's it. Okay. Let's21 not bring anything else in.22 THE PUBLIC: CME is paid for by the23 applicant?24 MR. PLOCKER: I object to that25 99 characterization.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: It's paid for through2 escrow funds and the town decides how to administer3 those escrow funds to our experts, which are4 independent. We pick, it's us, not the applicant.

erization.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: It's paid for through2 escrow funds and the town decides how to administer3 those escrow funds to our experts, which are4 independent. We pick, it's us, not the applicant. We5 have we asked our engineer, or our planner, or whoever6 other expert we need to provide information that is7 unbiased. It is not to the left, it is not to the8 right, it is what they believe is the middle ground9 looking at the law, the ordinance or the statute and10 say, how does each apply to that. That's what we asked11 Mr. MacNeill and that's what he has done for us.12 THE PUBLIC: So Mr. MacNeill this evening I13 was watching cutoff the objectors attorney on multiple14 occasions stating that he was unwilling to answer a15 question that was presented to him.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: There's testimony provided17 by the objectors and the applicant that would be better18 served for the public, if that's the question. However,19 the answers that we require from him tonight were given20 in relation to RSIS.21 THE PUBLIC: In your opinion?22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's correct.23 THE PUBLIC: But I know I've asked questions24 and --25 100 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I don't want to argue.1 You can ask another question, please. Go right ahead.2 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.3 So are you aware of any bills that you4 provided to the township to be paid by the township that5 don't come out of escrow funds, if you are aware? If6 you're aware CME bills the township for your services.7 THE WITNESS: So I'll answer it with, if you8 have any questions regarding the letter that I just read9 off I can answer those questions. Anything else is10 outside my role as the township planning board engineer.11 THE PUBLIC: And you're unwilling to answer12 questions like the basis, the law that, what the13 standards that you should apply, all of that, the14 standards that should be applied, because I know that15 was asked of you and your answer was, I believe, I am16 unwilling to answer that, that is a better question17 answered by the applicants expert?18 THE WITNESS: It's not my role as the19 planning board engineer to justify any information that20 the applicant has submitted. Again, I review against21 the local code and West Orange and I outline what does22 and does not comply.23 THE PUBLIC: And in your opinion you should24 not answer questions outside the scope of what you25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 101 to 104 of 149 26 of 59 sheets 101 believe to be your purview?1 THE WITNESS: So since I had no part of the2 design, I didn't -- I did nothing with the design,3 didn't do any soil testing. I reviewed the design and I4 wrote a letter outlining that. I could comment on that5 letter but anything outside that is for the applicant.6 That is the applicants burden to provide that testimony7 to justify their design.8 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.10 Would any other member of the public have11 any questions? Please come up be identified.12 THE PUBLIC: Diedre Dyson, Slayback Terrace.13 Couple minutes ago it was stated, and I want to make14 sure I have this right, that the light at Oval Road and15 Eagle Rock was either required or was agreed to in 2015,16 is that correct?17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's correct.18 THE PUBLIC: Okay. So back then --19 MR. PLOCKER: No.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry, you said no?21 MR. PLOCKER: It was agreed to in the22 settlement agreement, which was in 2020. It was always23 contemplated.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.25 102 THE WITNESS: I thought it was 2015. Back1 then wasn't this only for single family homes?2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker.3 MR. PLOCKER: It was not. In 2020 when it4 was agreed to the application did not contemplate single5 family homes.6 MS. McGOVERN: What he said was --7 MR. PLOCKER: I --8 MS. McGOVERN: In 2015 was when you started9 this application, this project.10 MR. PLOCKER: 2000 -- just to be very clear11 so there's no misunderstanding and I can explain. In12 July of 2015 all municipalities in the State of New13 Jersey, if they so wanted to, could voluntarily attempt14 to comply with their third-round Mount Laurel obligation15 by filing a lawsuit, I believe the date was July 15,16 it's called the Declaratory Judgement Act, seeking17 approval, blessing for their plan which goes from the18 years 2015 to July of 2025, which just ended. We're now19 in the fourth round. Any interested party, any20 developers, the Fair Share Housing Center, many people21 made applications to intervene in those litigations, so22 the Township of West Orange 100 percent absolutely filed23 such a litigation back in 2015. Some point thereafter24 my client moved to intervene in the case, our motion to25 103 intervene was granted, this property was offered as a1 site for an inclusionary development to help